a. Interchangeability: The offeror's bid samples did not fully interchange and pass the Limited Technical Inspection (LTI). After complete interchange of parts between all ten (10) bid samples per reference (d), paragraphs 3.5.3 and 4.6.3, one bid sample failed to fully interchange. The failing sample demonstrated an inability to function with the interchanged grip safety or any other grip safeties installed from the spare parts block.

a. Interchangeability: The offeror's bid samples did not fully interchange and pass the Limited Technical Inspection (LTI). After complete interchange of parts between all ten (10) bid samples per reference... three bid samples failed to fully interchange. Per enclosure (6), one sample would not lock closed, and two others displayed excessive lock up.

The other two manufacturers, by the way, are Springfield Armory with the MC Operator and something built by Karl Lippard.

So, any part, requiring any hand fitting, was a failure to meet testing requirements. The Colt failed because the new recoil system initially required a recess be hollowed out in the slide, which led to structural integrity issues that caused the much-noted frame cracks we've all seen pictures of. Colt was allowed to redesign and declared to have passed without retesting, which is a whole other ball of wax not germane to this thread.

Quote:

I'm going on anecdotes just as you are for sure, unless you can provide any reference of your own?

See above. I'm going on some obscure-but-open-to-the-public reports and OFUO info.

Quote:

Why would I contact them? Even though your points are erroneous to a degree, I stated earlier that I understand THEIR situation, regarding the logistics of equiping a 1911 for a force. My comments were pertaining to YOU.

This all started because you think the marketing is misleading you because of your experience with other platforms yes?

No, I think the marketing is misleading because the marketing is misleading. This is a good summary from another forum by someone who, while not involved in the testing, has access to the results:

Quote:

But the Marine Corps solicitation specifically requested that it not be hand fitted - meaning either one of two things - the actual components used to build the Marine Corps pistols are different, most likely more expensive to produce parts built with tighter tolerances, and possibly different materials or methods, while the civilian versions will be built with the same "run of the mill" parts that need to be hand fitted.

Or, the civilian pistols are being built with rejected parts that are outside of the tolerances, and consequently need to be hand fitted.

Odd as it may seem to say that being hand fitted is a negative aspect of a 1911, the point is, they won't be exact copies of the military issued pistols, and in fact, the details of their manufacture will run counter to one of the main features of the pistol - namely that they do not require gunsmith support to maintain, but can be simply repaired at an armorer level.

If your goal is to get an exact copy of the Marine Corps pistol, you're still missing one of the critical points of the solicitation, and one of the main selling points to the Marines in this pistol.

The "spec" was for interchangeable parts - not hand fitting, whether hand fitting on the level of a full custom shop, or hand fitting on the level of a standard production Rail Gun.